Search - Pride and Prejudice - The Special Edition (A&E, 1996) on DVD

Kendra M. (KendraM) from NASHVILLE, TN
Reviewed on 3/6/2008...

I realize that this version is more authentic than the Keira Knightly version. But, that version was much more entertaining. And, even though I don't usually really like Keira Knightly, she was incredibly charming in this particular film.

That said, I so wanted to like this! And, based on other reviews, I purchased it. I'm glad I have it, I guess, but I just now purchased the 1980s version and am looking forward to receiving that.

The casting was the big surprise. Mrs. Bennett was the worst of all. She is supposed to be a bit of a boor, but she is so incredibly shrill, it is fathomable that one will have a headache if the film is viewed in its entirety. I certainly did. As a matter of fact, it's been a few hours after I've finished the movie and I've had several ibuprofin. My head is still aching. She was so loud! Her voice was an octave higher than this reviewer's ears could comfortably take and I'm truly surprised that the surrounding glass objects survived in one piece rather than shattering.

Jane just was not pretty. I first saw the actress that played Jane play the reporter in House of Cards-- a first rate British drama starring Ian Richardson. My husband and I remarked her likeness to Princess Diana. Yet, she isn't as pretty as Jane is supposed to be. Her neck is freakishly thick and she lacks grace. In this film, she can't even pass as prettier than average. At the risk of being just a bit too picayune, had they done something a bit better with her hair-- maybe pulled it less tightly from the back, have the front hang a bit lower, she may have passed as more attractive, but there was nothing about her in the least attractive and I'm more than surprised at the choice of casting here.

Lizzie was far prettier if a bit heavy. Strangely enough, during the last scene of the first dvd, she was markedly thinner and her collarbones actually protruded a bit. I bet that was the final scene filmed. However, during the rest of both the first dvd and the entire second dvd, she must have weighed 20 pounds more than she probably should have and it showed. Still, she was very pretty and grew prettier by the time the film was over. But, she seemed a bit older than she should have been and she seemed a bit matronly for the role. Here, I'm not criticizing her weight at all-- by 'matronly', I mean her demeanor. She didn't appear charming or childlike when playing with the dogs or running in the fields. She didn't seem like a young and single woman at almost any time-- she seemed older in demeanor and appearance.

Bingley's sister wore WAY too much makeup for her role and looked like a French courtesan. I'm shocked at this choice, too. She was the only woman in the entire film to be made up this way and it was a very poor choice.

Lydia was absolutely appalling. She lacked even an iota of charm. She is physically unattractive and so entirely annoying to watch. To get away with what she got away with in the story, there has to be SOMETHING appealing about her and there wasn't anything appealing about her here. She did not have to be pretty, but she should have been a little cute-- something. She was just a disgusting character from beginning to end. Had the actress that played Kitty actually played Lydia, that would have been more successful.

Collins was terrible. The Collins in the Keira Knightly version was wonderful. His pretension actually had a bit of charm-- not enough to want to spend any time with him, mind you. Still, if one is to see these characters in a real light, they have to have some dimension to them. The Collins in this film did not. The Collins in the other film did.

The rest of the casting was superb. Crispin Bonham-Carter was perfect Bingley as was Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. When he lost some of his reserve one could truly see the charm under there. His take on the role was very good.

The newer and less faithful version with Keira Knightly was much more enjoyable, even if liberties were taken. Both Lizzie and Jane were perfectly cast, as were all the sisters. The mother, as annoying as Mrs. Bennet could possibly be, was at least not repulsive. One didn't absolutely hate her as they did in this version, even if one couldn't find too much likeable about her.

And, what can I say about Matthew Macfadyen who played Mr. Darcy in the other version? Matthew Macfayden was completely wonderful. Fabulous, really. Colin Firth was good, too, mind you, but Matthew Macfadyen portrayed Mr. Darcy perfectly.

The ending in this film was almost superb. Not so in the Keira Knightly version, which seemed completely overdone. Here, we got a quick view of everyone else in the film before the final scenes with Lizzie, Jane, Darcy and Bingley. That was perfect as those scenes played out over the sermon given by the pastor. Perfect ending.

3 of 15 member(s) found this review helpful.

Not a high quality DVD...

Dianne Foster | USA | 06/12/2000

(4 out of 5 stars)

""Pride and Prejudice" is one of the top 10 novels ever written. The BBC miniseries with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle is the finest adaptation to date. The actors are superb. The screen play is accurate, comprehensive, parsimonious, and entertaining. The dialogue is beautiful and preserves much of Jane Austin's witty and wry commentary. The cinematography is superb. The film was shot in authentic locations all over Britain.I thought the film adaptation by the BBC and A&E was so fine, I bought the VCR tapes when they were released, then I bought the lazer disk version, and then I bought the DVD version. The DVD version is a big fat disappointment. The quality of the DVD transfer is NOT good. First, the colors appear faded and with the Regency English palette of beige-greens, browns, ambers, and taupes, this is a serious defect. It makes the clothing look worn, the grass and trees look sunburned, and some places, the complexions look downright washed out. The film appears to have been shot in Arizona at high noon instead of England. Second, for some bizarre reason, the DVD processors nipped and tucked some of the original material. The clipped portions might not bother one who has never seen the original--but I noticed. There was no need to edit this film. Four of the 50-minute sections are crammed on disk 1 (where the editing takes place) and the other two were recorded on disk 2. I guess it would have made too much sense to record three episodes on each disk? Seems like poor planning to me.For the price of this 2-disk DVD package, more care should have been taken with the transfer process. My lazer disk version cost less, holds more, and has beautiful resolution."